Last fall, Xanterra Parks & Resorts was coming down to its last two months as concessionaire for the lodges and restaurants on the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park. It had been unable to come to terms with the National Park Service over a new, 15-year pact that would take effect January 1, 2015, and had sued the agency over its contracting decisions. About the same time, Xanterra filed a slew of applications to trademark the names of those iconic lodges and restaurants covered by the contract.
Those applications, currently pending with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, come in the wake of news that Delaware North Co. had laid claim to trademarks to place names in Yosemite National Park, including that to The Ahwahnee Hotel, perhaps the grande dame of national park lodging.
Trademarking place names within the National Park System is not new for many products unrelated to the daily operations of a park. Old Faithful isn't just the name of a geyser, it's also tied to a gun. Denali is a national park in Alaska, and it's also a baby stroller and a medical device. Grand Teton National Park towers above Wyoming's western border, and "Grand Teton" is also a cheese and a vodka. But it's the trademarks taken out or applied for, some in recent months, on lodges and places within national parks that perhaps best underscore John Muir's belief that "nothing dollarable is safe."
Muir's full comment -- "Nothing dollarable is safe, however guarded. Thus the Yosemite Park, the beauty glory of California and the Nation, Nature's own mountain wonderland, has been attacked by spoilers ever since it was established, and this strife I suppose, must go on as part of the eternal battle between right and wrong." -- was made in 1908 in the wake of a move by the City of San Francisco to dam the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park to create a reservoir for its water needs.
Leap ahead 106 years and Muir's fears are ringing loudly as concessions companies lay claim to trademarks for lodges they operate in the park and, at least in one case, place multi-million-dollar numbers to those trademarks if they lose the contract to operate those lodges.
Businesses have been making money off park names and places for decades. General Motors Corp. has taken names of parks -- Acadia and Denali, just to cite two -- and attached them to some of their vehicles. The Ballard Rifle & Cartridge Co. of Powell, Wyoming, received the "Old Faithful" trademark in 2008 for some of its firearms, while the Idaho Candy Co. trademarked some of its confections "Old Faithful" back in 1926.
Software companies have both trademarked park names and, in the case of Apple with its "Yosemite" operating system, simply affixed them to their products.
In products unrelated to national parks, the use of park names, whether trademarked or not, might not outwardly pose a serious problem. But in the case of Delaware North Co. at Yosemite, Xanterra Parks & Resorts at Grand Canyon National Park, and the Grand Teton Lodge Co. in Grand Teton, the trademarking of place names and lodges could pose a threat to the historical integrity of the parks as well as a possible impediment to the Park Service's efforts to develop a competitive process for awarding concessions contracts, a process that should be in the best interests of the visiting public.
Delaware North (DNC) had garnered the most attention of late for its trademark claims to The Ahwahnee Hotel, Curry Village, the Wawona Hotel, and Badger Pass. It also received a trademark for "Bracebridge Dinner," a sumptuous year-end, yuletide feast with music and pagentry that has been conducted annually at The Ahwahnee since 1927.
When the Park Service last year prepared a prospectus for companies interested in running concessions in Yosemite, officials for Delaware North notified the agency that DNC had trademarks to various lodges and locations in Yosemite. If it lost the bidding for the 15-year concessions contract that begins in 2016, DNC would require the winning bidder, as part of its Leaseholder Surrender Interest, to pay $51 million for the right to those names. The concessionaire has said that when it acquired the Yosemite Park & Curry Co. in 1993, among the assets it acquired were the intellectual property, ie., the trademarks on place names to the lodges and Badger Pass.
Should the Park Service require that any concessionaire that succeeds Delaware North pay that company $51 million to retain the place names, or should a new concessionaire be given the option to avoid paying that fee by renaming those historic lodges and facilities, and so figuratively erase part of the park's history?
So far the Park Service has not officially recognized Delaware North's claim, but it has in the prospectus left open the door for renaming all the places to which the claim extends if another company wins the contract. As a result, for example, the hotel known since 1927 as "The Ahwahnee" could go by a different name.
At the same time, the Interior Department's Office of the Solicitor is looking into the matter to see if Delaware North can legally trademark those place names, which date back many decades and which Park Service officials consider part of the historical landscape and vernacular of the park.
A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office shows that other concessionaires also have laid claims to names in other national parks. Xanterra Parks & Resorts, which last October announced its intent to sue the Park Service over its concessions contract, that same month filed an application to trademark the name "El Tovar," which is attached to the famous hotel on the South Rim of the canyon. Within two weeks of that application, Xanterra made similar applications to trademark the names of virtually all commercial businesses on, and below, the South Rim: "Phantom Ranch," "Bright Angel Lodge," "Kachina Lodge," "Yavapai Lodge," "Maswick Lodge," "Red Horse Cabin," "Arizona Room," "Lookout Studio," "Buckey O'Neill Cabin," "Thunderbird Lodge," "Trailer Village,""Hopi House," "Hermit's Rest," and "Desert View Watchtower."
All of those applicatons are pending while the patent office reviews them.
Xanterra officials could not be reached Sunday to explain why they applied for the trademarks at a time when they had little more than two months left on their concessions contract, and had not bid on the new pact.
In response to Xanterra's lawsuit, the Park Service argued that Xanterra was trying to thwart competition and that the concessionaire felt that its history on the South Rim entitled it to remain there. While the lawsuit is still pending, the Park Service and Xanterra have come to terms on a temporary one-year contract to allow the company to continue running the concessions while the Park Service works to award the longer term, 15-year contract.
Another park concessionaire, Grand Teton Lodge Co., back in August 2005 received a trademark to "Jenny Lake Lodge," an opulent lodge in the national park. The trademark was renewed in September, according to patent office records.
Comments
EC,
Common financial sense says Anschutz has the best tax lawyers billions can buy;
Phil doesn't even miss the tax money, tis merely loose change to him.
NPS was really foolish to begin business contracts with him simply because
the national park visitor does not gain by Xanterra business practices, since
visitors and low-ranked employees are never respected and often ripped-off !
Philip Anschutz is listed at number 40 with a net worth of $11.1 B.
"The son of an oil driller, he bought out his dad, went broke, and then struck oil in Utah and Wyoming," said a Forbes profile on Anschutz. "He parlayed the proceeds into railroads and then used the rights of way to lay fiberoptic cable, which he spun off into Qwest Communications."
Anschultz' AEG controls 125 sports and music venues worldwide and is the second-biggest live music producer after Live Nation. His Xanterra owns and operates lodges and restaurants at National Parks like Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon.
So what?
So what?
Your opinion but not my experience
So what?
They did if they wanted to receive the value they had built up in them.
Forget the 1960s rhetoric and stick to the historical facts. Fact: Xanterra, Delaware North, et al., are asking permission--yes permission--to conduct business on the public lands. But of course they never thought to trademark these place names years ago. They did so when the National Park Service went from giving "permission" to courting "partners." They did so when the National Park Service, having failed to read its history, forgot that the NPS was still in charge.
Now you know the difference between the railroads as concessioniares and the present crowd trying to maximize the bottom line. The railroads were after the passenger traffic; these people are after the tourist traffic. What's the difference? The tourists come in cars. The railroads resisted any diversion importuning visitors along the way. If their trains made money, the railroads were satisfied, and yes, passed all of their place names back to the American people as part of the public treasure they had become.
The current concessionaire climate is lacking that discipline, because again, it is all about "tourists" now. Meanwhile, the Park Service has succumbed, as well. It goes back to the other thread we are doing about too many parks. When you can't afford to manage what you already have, you start building partnerships in any quarter. Is that bad? It is if you forget that you are the permission-giver. No one can force the public to accept "partners" who want to "own" the parks. The American people still own the parks--and the names. Permission in no way includes ownership of the public trust, no matter what the "lawyers" say.
The solution remains simple. Let no one bid on these contracts without conceding that the American public remains in charge. And if the "lawyers" must get their crumbs, have them write the proper releases to all of the so-called intellectual property the concessionaires never owned in the first place. And if they don't agree to the releases, we don't take their bid. Will they sue us? Let them. They don't have a leg to stand on, but then, the NPS will have to know how to interpret the history, for yes, this will go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Are you disputing that they paid LSI which included IP when they won the contract?
Do you not believe that they have added to the IP through their operations over the decades. Is it your believe they should not be compensated for that goodwill?
Yes they asked permission to operate and paid a hefty price to do so.
I am not disputing a thing. History is disputing it. But, if you want to stir the pot, how about adding this to the soup? What does Delaware North owe the descendants of the Ahwahneechee Indians for shortening their tribal name to Ahwahnee? How far back do you want to take this? Yosemite, a corruption of Yo-che-ma-te, was originally from their language, too.
As for the "value added" argument, oh, please. That is what every concessionaire says. Our being there "added to the value." Fine. But what did OUR being there add to the value? You mean to say that the value added was due entirely to the concessionaire? You could go to sleep and make millions in the parks without having to do anything more.
The true private value the public has always honored--the possessory interests, as it were. But intellectual property? What intellectual property? Again, what would you call The Ahwahnee, Badger Pass, or Curry Village? The names derive from the history, which no one can legally own.
As for the "hefty price" concessionaires pay, no, we the public are the ones who "pay." You mean that is not passed along to our rooms and meals? Again, I get it. All Americans get it. The cost of doing business is part of the price. In short, if the "hefty price" in fact were doubled, it would not come out of Delaware North's profit, unless WE stopped going to the park.
Instead of stopping, we have only doubled our visitation over the past 30 years. Again, we added that "value," not Delaware North.
You see now why I celebrate the railroads. They were robber barons, too. It is just that they had more taste other than to insist they "owned" our national parks.
Alfred - Two great points!
Come on Alfred lets not dance. Did or did not the orginal contract call for DNC to pay an LSI for both tangible and intangible assets? I don't know the answer to that. Some of the earlier comments here have said yes. So do you know that is not true or do you have some other reason (yours or history's) to dispute their ownership.
Certainly the NPS contributed as well - but then it was the concessionaire paying fees to the NPS, not the other way around.